CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000958/7924
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000958
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Surender Singh
Village Raghopur,
P.O. Chawala
New Delhi 110071
Respondent : Public Information Officer
O/o the Sub Divisional Magistrate
Gov. of NCT of Delhi
SDM Office Complex,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
RTI application filed on : 09/02/2010 transferred on 17/02/2010 PIO replied : 05/03/2010 First appeal filed on : 02/03/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 25/03/2010 Second Appeal received on : 16/04/2010 Information Sought:
i) Despite an order to cancel the pattedari of 30 persons, why are the names of such
persons still in the Revenue Records and reasons for not canceling the pattedari in the 30
cases.
ii) Names of the Tehsildar, Patvari, Girdavar and Kanongo in village Raghupur on
07/06/1997.
Grounds for the First Appeal (filed before the passage of 30 days from the date of
RTI Application):
No information provided by the PIO.
Public Information Officer’s (PIO) reply:
The PIO sent a letter dated 05/03/2010 to the Appellant in which he enclosed the reply
sent by the APIO dated 03/03/2010. In this reply, the following was stated-
In response to Query No. 1 – Copy of rapat Roznamcha No.37, dated 21/06/1991 of
village Raghupur was provided and the APIO stated that the information sought was not
information as defined under the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 3
In response to Query No. 2 – As the information pertains to the Administration Branch,
o/o the Dy. Commissioner Dist. Sout West, the same would be collected and sent to the
Appellant.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA directed the PIO to provide the required information within 7 days from the
date of its order.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Non-compliance of the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant
filed an RTI Application on 09/02/2010. The Appellant did not receive any response from
the PIO and he therefore filed a First Appeal on 02/03/2010. It is noted that the First
Appeal was filed before 30 days had passed since the RTI Application was filed. The PIO
sent a reply dated 05/03/2010 in which he enclosed a reply sent by Mr. Anil Bhoja,
APIO, Najafgarh. The First Appellate Authority held a hearing in this matter which was
attended by the Appellant and Mr. RN Kaushik, Naib Tehsildar (Palam), present on
behalf of the PIO & SDM (Najafgarh). The First Appellate Authority in her order dated
26/03/2010 has recorded that she is not satisfied with the information given by the PIO
and she therefore directed the SDM (Najafgarh) to provide the complete information
within 7 working days. Despite the order of the First Appellate Authority, till the date of
filing of the Second Appeal (16/04/2010), the Appellant did not receive any information.
The information sought by the Appellant falls within the definition of Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act and no exemption can be claimed to refuse disclosure by the PIO. If the
information would not have been available with the PIO or if any exemption under
Section 8(1) or 9 applied in the present case, the First Appellate Authority would have
made an observation in that respect. However, no such observation has been made. If
there are no reasons on record as to why the pattedari of the 30 persons as stated in the
relevant order has not been cancelled, the PIO must state accordingly. Furthermore, with
regard to Query No. 2 it appears no information has been provided despite an assurance
given in the reply of the APIO.
The Commission therefore directs the PIO & SDM (Najafgarh) to comply with the order
of the First Appellate Authority and provide the complete information to the Appellant
before 21 June 2010 after taking assistance from relevant offices.
The Appeal is allowed.
Information should be provided to the Appellant before 21 June 2010.
The PIO & SDM (Najafgarh) is directed to submit proof of sending the information to the
Appellant to the Commission on 25 June 2010.
Page 2 of 3
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO & SDM (Najafgarh) and
the APIO Mr. Anil Bhoja are guilty of not furnishing the complete information within the
time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7. They have further refused to obey the
orders of their superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of
information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the
information to be given. It appears that their actions attract the penal provisions of
Section 20 (1). A show cause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed to give
their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
They will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 25 June
2010 at 11 a.m. along with their written submissions to show cause why penalty should
not be imposed on themas mandated under Section 20 (1).
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the
Appellant and for not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the PIO
& SDM (Najafgarh) is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 25
June 2010 and direct them to appear before the Commission on 25 June 2010 along with
him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
31 May 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(AG)
CC: Mr. Anil Bhoja
APIO, Najafgarh
O/o the Sub Divisional Magistrate
Gov. of NCT of Delhi
SDM Office Complex,
Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043.
Page 3 of 3